Suchergebnisse

What did Native American women and men voters think about Donald Trump on the eve of the 2018 election? This question has important implications for understanding the gendered political attitudes of peoples adversely targeted by Trump's politics. To examine this issue, we analyze a path-breaking, nationally representative sample of six hundred Native American voters. We find that Native Americans' attitudes about sexual harassment are central to their attitudes about politics and policy in the Trump era. This relationship suggests that Native American voters are an informed electorate influenced by the president's words and actions. Our work demonstrates multiple ways that gender influenced Native American politics during an election where gender and racial identities were central. In so doing, our work illuminates how race, institutions, and vulnerability affect the political attitudes of Native American voters, one of the least studied groups in American politics.

AbstractThis study explores Latino perceptions of commonality and competition with African Americans across the country, focusing on the South. Using the Latino National Survey (LNS), we test the existing inter-group relation theories using an original measurement approach. With the creation of relative measures of commonality and competition of Latinos toward Blacks, we find that Latinos perceive co-ethnics as a greater source of competition than Blacks when our relative measure is used to interpret Latino perceptions of competition with African Americans. Moreover, our results suggest that Latinos in the South have similar perceptions of commonality to Blacks as Latinos more generally, across both approaches that measure perceptions of commonality. Most importantly, we find that when the relative competition measure is employed, Latinos who live in Southern states do in fact have higher perceptions of competition with Blacks than Latinos at large. These trends provide a valuable addition to the extant literature focused on inter-group relations by emphasizing that not only place and context matter, but also the way perceptions of competition and commonality are measured and operationalized.

This study examines how anti-immigrant policies affect the physical health of Latina/os in the United States. Merging two unique datasets: sum of anti-immigrant policies by state from 2005–2011 and a 2011 Robert Wood Johnson Center for Health Policy nationally representative sample of Latina/os (n=1,200), we estimate a series of logistic regressions to understand how anti-immigrant legislations are affecting the health of Latina/os. Our modeling approach takes into consideration Latinos' diverse experience, context that is widely overlooked in datasets that treat Latina/os as a homogeneous ethnic group. Our findings suggest that an increase in anti-immigrant laws enacted by a state decreases the probability of respondents reporting optimal health, even when controlling for other relevant factors, such as citizenship status, language of interview, and interethnic variation. The implication and significance of this work has tremendous impacts for scholars, policy makers, health service providers and applied researchers interested in reducing health disparities among minority populations.

Table of Contents: Frontmatter / Chapter One: Latino Politics: Both a Growing and Evolving Political Community / Chapter Two: Methodology and User Guide / Chapter Three: History, Demographics and Mass Media / Chapter Four: Latino Identity / Chapter Five: Books Focused on Ethnic Studies / Chapter Six: Political Attitudes and Political Behavior / Chapter Seven: Latino Elites, Representation, and Institutions / Chapter Eight: Inter-group Relations / Chapter Nine: Public Policy Issues / Chapter Ten: Methodology and Measurement Issues / Chapter Eleven: Reference Sources / Appendixes ; This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.

In this research note, the authors explore the extent to which personal attributes influence voting behavior for African American members of Congress. The authors test the relationship between legislators' personal attributes and Poole and Rosenthal's DW-NOMINATE scores for black members of the 101st to 108th Congresses. The results suggest that personal attributes matter. They increase the explained variance in the models, and factors such as generational cohort, religion, and military experience are statistically significant. These results suggest that while descriptive members of Congress share much in common, they should not be interpreted as monolithic with respect to congressional voting. Adapted from the source document.

In this research note, the authors explore the extent to which personal attributes influence voting behavior for African American members of Congress. The authors test the relationship between legislators' personal attributes and Poole and Rosenthal's DW-NOMINATE scores for black members of the 101st to 108th Congresses. The results suggest that personal attributes matter. They increase the explained variance in the models, and factors such as generational cohort, religion, and military experience are statistically significant. These results suggest that while descriptive members of Congress share much in common, they should not be interpreted as monolithic with respect to congressional voting.

In the spring of 2006, an unprecedented mobilization of undocumented immigrants and their advocates sent shockwaves across the U.S. political landscape. Whether the demonstrations did more to advance the interests of undocumented residents and other immigrants or to harden nativist sentiments remains an open question. Examining data culled from a three-county exit poll of more than 4,300 voters in three urbanized western counties, we employ multivariate analysis to examine how the immigration rallies impacted voters' perceptions of Mexican immigrants. Our results indicate that the demonstrators failed to win the hearts and minds of American voters, most of whom reported that the rallies tended to negatively impact their perceptions of Mexican immigrants. The depth of this negative reaction varied across the sociopolitical contexts represented by the three counties as well as voters' individual attributes including party identification, ethnicity, nativity, and other characteristics.

Objective. Researchers have long examined the nature of representation, paying particular attention to the dynamics of descriptive and substantive representation in racial and ethnic communities. The objective of this article is to determine the extent to which personal attributes influence the voting behavior of Latino members of Congress.Methods. We test the relationship between legislator's personal attributes and Poole and Rosenthal's DW‐NOMINATE scores for Latino members of the 101st–108th Congresses.Results. After controlling for institutional and electoral factors, results show that education, gender, nativity, and generation have significant effects on Latino legislators' voting behavior. Religion and national origin appear not to have an effect.Conclusions. This analysis shows that personal attributes predict Latino congressional voting even when controlling for district and institutional factors. As such, this study demonstrates that Latino legislators have in‐group differences and therefore should not be considered a monolithic group.

Abstract
We explore the racial and ethnic politics associated with mask wearing early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Using panel and cross-sectional data from the National Panel Study of COVID-19 (n = 1,996) fielded in March and April 2020, we asked Americans about their self-reported race/ethnicity, their political party affiliation, and if they have worn a mask or scarf in public to stop the spread of the coronavirus. We also asked respondents who reported wearing a mask in public if they worry they might be mistaken for a criminal. Our logistic regression models found that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to wear a mask or scarf over their faces to prevent the spread of COVID-19 despite being more likely to worry about being criminalized by police or security while wearing a mask. We argue that proximal contact with the virus, because racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected by COVID-19, leads to increased willingness by people in these groups to protect themselves and others. Democrats were also more likely to wear masks compared with Republican respondents. and those living in Republican-led states were less likely to wear a mask in public and more likely to be criminalized for wearing a mask.
Was mask use during the early COVID-19 pandemic political? In our paper, we use panel and cross-sectional data from the National Panel Study of COVID-19 fielded in March and April 2020 when we asked Americans whether they had worn masks. We also asked those who wore a mask if they felt criminalized while wearing a mask. Our findings show that there are stark differences in mask use between demographic groups and worrying about being criminalized while wearing one.

AbstractWhat makes immigration a salient issue among Latinos? We focus on immigration – one of the most pressing issues facing the United States (US) – and evaluate the factors that motivate immigration salience among Latinos over several election cycles. Although immigration policy has been linked with the Latino electorate over the period of our study due to high foreign-born rates and mixed-status families within this community, immigration policy has actually not been the dominant issue for the majority of Latino voters over this time period. Using survey responses from the 2008, 2012 and 2016 elections, we test multiple theories of issue salience by exploring social, political and individual determinants of policy salience among Latino voters. We find that in addition to nativity, consumption of ethnic media and group identity are associated with reporting immigration as a salient issue. These findings provide a valuable addition to literature of public opinion on immigration and the origins of policy issue salience among ethno-racial minorities in the US.

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed all aspects of American life, including, for many, how we vote. We explore the question of who supports unrestricted absentee ballots during a pandemic. We argue that women are more likely to support absentee ballots because they allow for greater flexibility and minimize the potential for exposure. We test this theory using the National Panel Study of COVID-19 (n = 1,892), which asked respondents about their preferences for absentee ballots, their worry about the coronavirus, and their household composition. Using multinomial logistic regressions, we find that women are more likely to support allowing absentee ballots compared with more restrictive voting options and are more likely to say they support absentee ballots for all if they know someone who has contracted COVID-19. The policy implications for these findings are discussed along with other sociodemographic indicators in our analysis.

In this article, we test whether perceptions of Latino linked fate influence partisan identification and voting behavior among the Latino electorate across time. Specifically, we contend that attachments to the Latino community have become more widely used heuristics for Latino voters due to an increase in anti-immigrant (Latino) sentiment. Moreover, growing attachments to the Latino community have the potential to influence partisanship and even compete with traditional partisan loyalties (i.e., partisan heuristics) at the polls. To test our argument, we rely on multiple surveys of Latino likely voters with similar measures that span over a decade and a half. Our results indicate that perceptions of linked fate, to varying degrees, are associated with Latino's decisions to identify with the Democratic Party. At least in more recent presidential elections, they also indicate that Latinos are becoming increasingly reliant on ethnic heuristics while becoming less reliant on their own partisan identity to make decisions at the polls. The findings have important implications for the future of the Democratic and Republican Parties' ability to court Latino voters and our understanding of how party identification operates among the Latino electorate.

This paper explores assumptions made and measurement approaches in the nuanced pathway between enacted state immigration policies and the outcomes they affect in Latino immigrant communities. Scholars across a variety of fields have found that contemporary state immigrant policymaking is associated with outcomes in immigrant communities including political engagement, mental and physical health, access to education, and labor opportunities. In this paper, we explore questions of how state immigration policies produce these and other outcomes. Much of this literature relies on the assumption that members of the immigrant communities are aware of the state policies being enacted, yet few quantitative studies of the effects of state immigration policy contain measures of both policy and of perception. We seek to determine the extent to which Latino immigrants are aware of state immigrant policymaking to help determine whether state immigration policies are a valid approach to measure perceptions of the immigration policy environment in Latino immigrant communities. Additionally, we explore alternative measures of immigration policy. Our findings are particularly relevant to policymakers and immigration scholars as the contemporary political environment has helped to fuel anti‐immigrant sentiments and rhetoric contributing to Latinos' perceptions of the state immigrant policy environment.